Posted
by
Hemos
on Monday May 22, 2006 @09:49AM
from the the-full-monty-of-information dept.

ifitzgerald writes "This morning, Wired News released the full text of the AT&T NSA wiretap documents that are currently under court seal. From the article: 'AT&T claims information in the file is proprietary and that it would suffer severe harm if it were released.
Based on what we've seen, Wired News disagrees. In addition, we believe the public's right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T's claims to secrecy.
As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein -- information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked "proprietary," and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues.'"

Since I don't know how long this will be up at Wired, I have mirrored it on my site at http://jaduncan.net/mark-kleins-att-statement-in-t he-eff-case [jaduncan.net]
The HTML and the PDF are both there, and all in one page since I don't have to care about ad views. And no, a nastygram wouldn't make me take it down.

Actually, no. There's such a thing as principles, you know. I don't believe that a case that revolves around possibly unconstituitional state actions should be secret, since that effectively negates democracy.

If you have an executive that can avoid releasing info on governmental programs to the legislature, and can hide or quash cases where the judiciary declare those programs illegal, what oversight is left? You might as well just elect a king.

Although I applaud standing one's ground, you must understand that of those who don't there is a portion who aren't simply caving in - they are taking a calculated decision.

Do I...A. Stand by ground, go to jail, and spend the next 4-8 years there pretty much powerless.orB. Let them win this one, and be free to fight another day that isn't 4-8 years into the future - like the next day.

Which option one chooses -should- be carefully considered.. I presume GP did:)( not saying they would actually go to jail, let alone for 4-8 years )

It is fear of the consequences of breaking a law that enslaves the People.

When you lose your fear, you are Free. Again, our Forefathers were willing to die for their beliefs. And they publicly signed the Declaration of Independence even though it would be their death warrant if they lost.

Now, too many of us are willing to trade that Freedom for a false security. Too many of us live in fear of the consequences of Freedom.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

So the boys at Wired are only in trouble if enough people believe what Mr. Gonzales has to say.

One of the near truths we've been taught is the power of the government is defined and limited by the Constitution. Oh, it's a consistent theory of course, but only self-consistent. It's a convenient ficiton, not how things actually work.

The power of the government is defind and limited by what the people will go along with. The Constitution is just lists that out. Not even that really -- it's our understanding of what the Constitution says that empowers or limits government. Nonetheless, the Constitution is a powerful check on the government because as malleable a it is, it is nowhere near as vague as the concept of an "electroal mandate".

Which is why we've had such as bumper crop of semantic creativity out of Washington around the definitions of "unlawful combatant", "torture", "war" and "domestic surveillance". One way to change the law and the Constitution is alter the language out from under it.

These are not the sort of men whose wordplay is motivated by the sheer pleasure of it, and it's quality shows it. It's a brutal and ghastly affair, obsessed with the redistribution of power.

Which is why we've had such as bumper crop of semantic creativity out of Washington around the definitions of "unlawful combatant", "torture", "war" and "domestic surveillance". One way to change the law and the Constitution is alter the language out from under it.

FYI - The phrase you are looking for is "newspeak".

If you don't think this is Orwellian, just RTFA. Then think about what you could do with that hardware.

It seems like an awful risk for Wired News, opening themselves to being sued by AT&T. I sincerely hope nothing wrong comes out of this to them. But knowing the US... they just placed a sign reading "sue us"!:)

Small risk considering the government will will their stay with the States Secret Act. The original case will never go to trial and AT&T will be unable to launch a case against Wired because it can't show how the documents caused harm without identifying the harm, which in turn would violate the States Secret Act.

It seems like an awful risk for Wired News, opening themselves to being sued by AT&T... knowing the US... they just placed a sign reading "sue us"!

And for that, I have incredible respect for their editors, allowing such actions to continue, indeed showing that they are willing to take a stand against the assault on press freedoms that have been a regular marching call of the current administration.

Not that I didn't have a lot of respect for Wired before... but if there is a preemtive legal fund, let me know where to contribute.

I know/. probably isn't the right place to say "Thank You" to Wired, but I'll do it here first, and then email them next.

The word "treason" has been so abused by people trying to steal the Rights that our Forefathers died for that it is meaningless in today's political discussions.

At it's most pure form, "treason" means attempting to destroy the government.

So, going public with details on what may be an illegal operation by the government is in no way "treason". Except to those who would like to claim that any actions they don't approve of would "hurt" the government (translation: "them and their party") and "help" the "enemy".

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person

Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

Having thus by definition made treason consist of something outward and visible and capable of direct proof, the framers turned to safeguarding procedures of trial and ordained that 'No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.' This repeats in procedural terms the concept that thoughts and attitudes alone cannot make a treason. It need not trouble us that we find so dominant a purpose emphasized in two different ways. But does the procedural requirement add some limitation not already present in the definition of the crime, and if so, what?

While to prove giving of aid and comfort would require the prosecution to show actions and deeds, if the Constitution stopped there, such acts could be inferred from circumstantial evidence. This the framers thought would not do. 41 So they added what in effect is a command that the overt acts must be established by direct evidence, and the direct testimony must be that of two witnesses instead of one. In this sense the overt act procedural provision adds something, and something important, to the definition.

Interpret that as you will. I will point out, however, that constitution limitations on the scope of a treason charge did not prevent lilly-levered members of congress from defining certain other acts as sedition [cornell.edu].

What other precedents are their for this kind of thing, were a newspaper willfully defied what it knows are documents that are secret, and claimed to be needed to stay secret in context of a war?

Most famously, there are the Pentagon Papers [wikipedia.org]. In 1971, the New York Times published excerpts of Department of Defense documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. Roughly, the documents showed that the government had lied about the Vietnam War. The US government obtained an injunction against the Times, on national security grounds. The Supreme Court later overturned the injunction, but the decision, as my not-a-lawyer brain understands it, did not make it clear when the press can get away with this sort of thing.

This is not perfectly analogous to the current situation, because it is AT&T's documents that are being leaked, not the government's.

Any real conservative would applaud you for your post. It's often thought of that the Republicans are "conservatives". That is incorrect, however. They are not truly conservative in any way.

Conservatives stand for the ideas of the Founding Fathers. They are sickened by any limits on the freedom of expression, especially when it comes to political correctness or legislation that prevents the release of documents as in this case. A true conservative would be happy that you were able to openly present your view on this matter, and they would support you in every way, even if they did disagree with you. A real conservative would likely even be disappointed that there's a moderation system here.

Many of those who pass themselves off as Republicans today are not conservatives at all, even if they claim that they are. At best, they're neo-conservatives, but even then that's a misleading title. What they have done is take the worst of liberalism, and added extreme feelings of nationalism and religion to it. It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society. That is indeed why the Republicans are popular with rednecks in the US, for instance. They are universally disliked by actual conservatives, however.

So please, don't confuse "Republicans" with "conservatives". They are two very distinct groups of people, with two very different attitues toward basic issues such as freedom of expression, individual liberty, and so forth. Every real conservative is completely mortified by the recent goings-on within the US, and their involvement in wars around the world.

And yet our founding father executed several people as spies - for publishing military information to our enemies. The situation is not as black and white as you make it out to be. (For example, by having Wired publish this we are having the least informed person make the disclosure decision. Remember, these programs have bi-partisan Congressional oversight - but only by the security committee. The Congressmen that are posturing are just using the fact that they are not on the committe for political gain. Don't be naive, look for the motivations of your representative.)

It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society.

Ah - no bias here! Honestly, the same could be said about any political party. Half of the people have an IQ less than 100. Very few have a high IQ (above 140 or so). Dumb people out vote you, get over it. (As a collorary to what I said above, your representative is primarily conserned with convincing those that do not check facts, but watch the news. Always check the facts! [BTW, as a republican you should be reading this site for an opposing viewpoint. I'm not sure what you should do as a Democrat - is the Drudge Report any good?])

And I find it laughable that someone (the grandparent) is worried about getting modded down by conservatives. Conservatives? Slashdot?

Watch, this comment will be modded down by liberals - virtually guaranteed!

And I find it laughable that someone (the grandparent) is worried about getting modded down by conservatives. Conservatives? Slashdot?

You're kidding, right? Slashdot is pretty far right. Look at the discussion any time the question of trade unionism [slashdot.org] comes up. One can hardly call this a left-wing consensus. The number of Thatcherites and Ayn Rand fetishists here is amazing. You'd struggle to find someone on/. seriously favouring the nationalisation of all industry, mass organised labour and a really high (like say 90%) top rate of income tax. THAT would be left-wing.

If there's a political consensus on/., it's a very individualist one. We're hackers, solitary creatures uncomfortable with being interfered with by either governments or corporations. It's right-wing, but also anarchistic, what you might call libertarian.

Well, all things are relative, I suppose. I think they are pretty far left, except in the things you mentioned;-}The thing is, it is very hard for the upper x% to argue for anything other than a meritocracy. Unions serve to make everyone get the same rewards, regardless of effort or ability - so it brings up the slackers and down the hackers, so you can easily see why hackers would be against it.

A simpler metric might be: Who thinks that Clinton is better than Bush? Who thinks that Bush is better than

Patriotism is being loyal and loving your country unconditionally and your politicians when they deserve it.

I disagree, strongly.

To my mind, an American patriot is loyal to the ideals of freedom - freedom for all - as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. And surely the highest mark of a true patriot is to THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

There is nothing "unconditional" in true independent thinking.

I consider myself a patriot. And I surely do love the ideals this country was (ostensibly..) founded to ensure the reality of.

But what the country is today is FAR from ideal, and I am not refering to the government only. In fact - one could make a solid case (As V did in V for V) that this society has the government it deserves. And what does that say about us?

As for Wired news posting this info, I am sure others have thought this, and maybe some have said it, but it's worth saying again: DOWNLOAD AND ARCHIVE the Wired info! This way it can't be "disappeared" in a "server accident"..

Shouting someone down, like the anonymous, unsupported, negative mods dumped on that post, is tyrannical. Actually disagreeing in a reply post, like yours, and like this one, is a free exercise of speech.

Free speech wasn't born yesterday, neither was Slashdot's moderation abuse, and neither was I. Freedom is not just an abstract legalism, but a way of life. Tyranny is a way of death. The distinction isn't always obvious, but it's not subtle.

except he was right. he was modded down, while your totally off-topic post modded insightful. yes, i know. i'm gonna get modded down too now, oh well. amazing how many moderators mod based on agreement with the opinion, not the validity of the opinion itself.

Wired states in the article that this isn't illegal. The gag order is only on the EFF and AT&T. So Wired are fine in posting it. Also, since the document isn't the exact document under seal but an older version, it may not constitute the final evidence given by Klein. Wired is not doing anything legally brave here: they have made sure to cover their asses.

The article fails to mention what the consequences for the EFF are though... (assuming the EFF leaked it to Wired.)

Wired is not doing anything legally brave here: they have made sure to cover their asses.

Oh, I think you're wrong there. While the gag order may have been applied to the EFF, that Wired published this may bring heat down on the magazine and the reporters. I think it is brave for Wired to come forward with this information knowing that ATT and the NSA probably don't want it published.

Wired didn't violate a gag order, someone from the litigation did. So likely the court will interview the reporter who cited the anon source and ask him who gave him the docs. If he refuses to speak he'll be held in contempt and thrown in jail (until the case is over likely). If he does cough up a name, that person will be put on trial for violating what ever specific laws are applied in a gag order (contempt?).

Having looked through the documents that Wired provided, I didn't see anything that should qualify as a trade secret of AT&T. The documents do list a bunch of equipment that is located in AT&T's server rooms, including the splitter that lets 'Authorized persons' monitor the data flowing through the fiber optics cable- but it doesn't say how the equipment is connected to each other or what software programs the machines are running. This data is not enough for anyone to duplicate AT&T's network, not even in a small part. The only damage AT&T can expect to receive from the publication of these documents is even more of their customers convinced that they have been letting the NSA take all their information.

I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement.

If someone doesn't want information about a crime committed out in the open, they shouldn't have let that information out. There is no such thing as blackmail, in my mind, and there is no fair trial if you're guilty and the information is out there that proves it.

The immorality of what the NSA and AT&T have done is worse that the illegality of it. I see no reason why the ultimate penalty should not be paid by the government officials who created this beast. Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous.

Of course nothing will happen. Some fines? Some words about terrorism? Do people not see that the worst terrorists are those with the worst weapons?

I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trialThe ACLU would disagree with you

If someone doesn't want information about a crime committed out in the openNot all information is relevant to the commission of an alleged crime. Oops, sorry. In this case what you were doing was legal but you won't be able to do it anymore since the folks who actually were committing a crime have changed their tactics.

Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonousRTFM. Go back and read the Constitution again. Look at Article III, Section 3 [cornell.edu].

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

If someone had a program in place to identify and prosecute those who would injure American citizens, and someone else decided to render that program unusable, whom do you think would be more likely guilty of treason?

I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement.

I disagree. You can say whatever you want, but be prepared to face the consequences. Many of the laws restricting speech serve a very necessary purpose. Here are some examples:

Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. (The classic example.)

Slandering a political opponent, loudly via the media outlets you own, and only hours before voting starts.

Publishing libelous remarks a political opponent, loudly via the media outlets you own, and only hours before voting starts.

False advertising

Medical personnel lying about dangers, options.

Blackmailing someone for something they have or have not done.

There are plenty of other legitimate reasons to limit free speech. I'm less convinced of the need for "trade secrets" and certainly it does not trump revealing political corruption and illegal actions by government officials (the most highly protected form of free speech). In this instance there is little to no justification and the executive branch has absolutely no authority to suppress this speech because of national security concerns.

The immorality of what the NSA and AT&T have done is worse that the illegality of it. I see no reason why the ultimate penalty should not be paid by the government officials who created this beast. Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous.

I'd argue that what they are doing is illegal and unethical, but not necessarily immoral. But it is the letter of the law that needs to be upheld to insure that we continue to be a nation of law. I would also consider these people to be oathbreakers, violating their oaths to uphold the constitution, but then, so is pretty much every member of congress and every person in the armed forces. The constitution and bill of rights is just a speaking point these days, and is in no way enforced. The federal government is just what the founding fathers tried to prevent. The issue is what to do about it. In this day and age of mass media can an opponent win on the reform platform? I thinks so, but without a lot of money behind them and certainly not from within either mainstream political party.

Really? You mean political opponents and vocal critics being killed and imprisoned in eastern Europe during the cold war doesn't quite measure up to tapping a telephone line? I think you need to have your scales of justice recalibrated.

ANY attack on a people's freedoms are equal. Whether it be free speech, privacy, or life. These values should all be held equally; any attack on one should be defended as vehemently as an attack on any other.

There is nothing propriatry or sensitive in the docs. All they are of a list of fibers that should have an optical splitter inserted. and where the new end should go. Working for a large telco, I have piles and piles of documents like these.

The Docs do not outine what traffic is on those circuits, where they go, or even where the tap goes.

The only thing they show is that there network was changed so that what ever is moving over the fibers is duplicated and sent somewhere else.

Check out the photos of the "secret doors". Now, I
understand that networking can get a bit messy, but
that doesn't justify keeping a needlessly unsafe work
area. That place looks like a nightmare! And not
even remotely handicap-accessible.

For shame, AT&T... Blatantly violating the US constitution
we can overlook, but a dangerously messy work environment?
Tsk tsk tsk.

Ah well... on the bright side, if they nailed Al Capone
for tax evasion, perhaps we plebes will eventually see
some form of justice done in this case.

Okay, so Wired has joined the group of people that have published the informants statements, and judges, being the considered thinkers they are, would not have barred only the EFF if the judge did not want the statements published. One point for the judge on that one. Neither did the judge declare the documents be returned or the informant 'gagged', two more points for the judge. At this point, it looks like a rout on the field of play, AT&T is in trouble. All the disinformation that they have been spreading is shaping up to be the proverbial excrement headed for the oscillating rotary device.

Everyone in the world but AT&T and NSA can see the train wreck coming. Time for some timely resignations about now, and please please please can we all drop the bottom out of AT&T stock just now too!

Where is Judge Judy when you need her? I can't wait to see what unimaginable harm this will do to those wanting to take away more and more of my 'rights' as a citizen of the Empire of the Dollar.

No, I'm not posting AC, the American system of laws and justice do have a good balance most of the time, and eventually, if you play with fire long enough, you get burned. I am given the right to discuss, even rant about how my government is serving me. As of today, I still have all of the rights. I would like to see those spying, criminals get the justice they actually deserve.... treason against the people of US.

The right to bear arms is to ensure that the government remains humble, among other things. Despite that fact that this would be a lopsided event, the framers of the constitution did not try to make it impossible for future citizens to remove the government from power. NOW, I'm not saying that we should, for the most part, I like the way the US government works. What I'm unhappy with is that there are entrenched in that government, people who would abuse the power granted to them for their own gain. People who would misuse those power to abuse the rights of citizens for their own gain.

We, the people.... demand to know who those people are, and what they are doing. When the government acts in the dark, hides from the light of oversight, it is time for change... Its a mid-term election year, and 2008 promises to be a special kind of election. So lets all dust off our thinking caps and start taking notes:

Who is making mistakes now?Who is supporting DRM/*AA/stupid Internet laws?

And so on... then lets all vote accordingly when the time comes, even if it politically seems wrong. A good mix of all three parties, and a few token representatives from the fringe parties is "GOOD FOR AMERICANS" (TM) and thus good for America, America's allies, and the world in general in as much as it affects the world in general.

And, if you're not a US citizen, don't be afraid to share your notes. I'm sure you get different news than we a 'given' here in the US. Lets make it a wiki if we have to....

Bush opponents and privacy advocates have been screaming about how illegal it is (4th amendment violation), and crying over the invasion of privacy. The problem is, it's not illegal. the Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality of such issues.

The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the numbers they dial:[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .

[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.

But there is no need to stop at just phone numbers. There is a ton of information collected on you by others that the government can legally obtain and use under this ruling. Consumer data has become so valuable that companies known as data aggregators buy entire data banks from credit card companies, hotel chains, phone companies, etc., mix them with publicly available data from phone books or title companies and then sell access to their mega-database to marketing analysts seeking a comprehensive view of the American consumer.

Anyone with enough cash can find out what someone's mortgage payments are, what restaurants he frequents, what debts he owes and where he banks, whether he subscribes to American Rifleman or Martha Stewart Living, and whether he's more likely to visit Graceland or Greenland, among a thousand other features of his life. Acxiom, for example, the US's largest data aggregator, has 20 billion customer records covering 96 percent of U.S. households. That's a ton of data about you, me, everyone.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the government may obtain business and other records held by third parties without warrant or probable cause, because those records are no longer private. Law enforcement officials may subpoena records, or request that they be provided voluntarily, or may simply purchase data repositories on the market like any other player in the digital economy.

Got that? The NSA could buy records from Acxiom (and all the other aggregators) and mine the shiznit out of it for whatever they want and it's all perfectly legal. From these third parties, they could know an astonishing amount about any one of us. I mean a breathtaking amount. Add in programs like Carnivore and Echelon (and probably and hundred other still classified ones) and you can be sure if the government wants to know everything there is to know about you, they know it. And they got it all legally.

If you don't like that, I can understand - I'm not sure I do either and it would be healthy to have a debate over that topic. However, constantly insisting that laws were broken only shows that you've never put any thought or research into the position you've taken and exposes you for a fool that is probably best ignored.

Just because the laws are not updated to protect us, doesnt mean it isnt wrong and isnt against the 4th Ammendmant, someone just needs to get out there and make sure the 4th Ammednmant is doing its job in a world were technology has let the government get around its original intent. Because we can see as Americans the original intent of the 4th Ammendmant was to stop what essentially are unreasonable searches, or fishing for criminal activities among people who are not suspect of a crime. Which is what is

However, constantly insisting that laws were broken only shows that you've never put any thought or research into the position you've taken and exposes you for a fool that is probably best ignored.

I think that's a little unfair to say that. There is widespread opinion in the legal community that what the NSA is doing is illegal. For example Kate Martin [acsblog.org] of the Center of National Security Studies [cnss.org]. Also don't forget Qwest turned down the government's request because their own internal lawyers thought it was illegal.

We won't know the "offical" legality of the program until SCOTUS makes some sort of decision on it. If that ever happens....

"Got that? The NSA could buy records from Acxiom (and all the other aggregators) and mine the shiznit out of it for whatever they want and it's all perfectly legal."

No, they couldn't. The government could buy the records in the course of an investigation, but data mining, even if the data is legally obtained, still violates the 4th amendment. In theory, at least, though in practice the 4th has been shat upon.

Smith vs. Maryland doesn't apply here since Smith was a suspect in the robbery in question --

Does anyone else suspect that AT&T may be receiving special treatment for getting in bed with the fed? The anti-molopy police seem to have been looking the other way as AT&T snatched up BellSouth (the rest of Cingular with it) and SBC.

Having just read through the documents, and being a network operator for a small network, this looks exactly like the installation thay ANY large network provider would implement to comply with the Lawful Intercept program mandated in CALEA.

While I agree that CALEA is an overly broad statute, it does require network operators to be able to provide the capability for court-ordered lawful intercepts. The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could. But from that viewpoint, so could any phone company that controls the local loop for Internet or telephone calls.

Klein makes an incorrect intuitive leap when he says that since AT&T Narus system is spliced into their links to Verio, Genuity, UUNet, etc. that means they can read the entire internet. This is wrong, they can only read traffic that has been routed over their network, generally that means only traffic to, or from, one of their customers, as required by CALEA. The major Internet backbone links are OC-192 and higher, the Narus system described in the document could only handle up to OC-48 (1/4 the speed of OC-192 circuits).

On the issue of NSA being involved in this, it is possible that this system wasn't implemented for CALEA, but instead to allow NSA to wiretap conversations that had been discovered to be heading out of the country, and then requested to be intercepted. For instance, if they had an IP address of some mail server in Iraq, they could tell (legally without a warrant) AT&T to give them logs and conversations from any AT&T customer, over any AT&T network link, specifically to that foreign IP address. Or at least that is the way NSA and the administration perceive the rules for foreign intercept.

Another potential reason for NSA cleared individuals having access to the rooms is that NSA performs security clearance screening for telecommunications related lawful intercept employees. Which would be a logical part of the protection of a CALEA lawful intercept operation from being tampered with by foreign agents, or non-authorized parties.

Having just read through the documents, and being a network operator for a small network, this looks exactly like the installation thay ANY large network provider would implement to comply with the Lawful Intercept program mandated in CALEA.

I suspect it was regulatory compliance and security budget that funded this installation, but it is a little "above and beyond."

The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could.

I agree, but this does look very suspicious and it is certainly worth investigating. We were commanded to be "eternally vigilant" against our own government. This should be investigated and NSA files and procedures reviewed to determine just what is occurring. I see no national security reason to keep this secret (aside from, possibly, the contents of some actual intercepted communications).

This is wrong, they can only read traffic that[sic] has been routed over their network, generally that means only traffic to, or from, one of their customers, as required by CALEA.

I take it you've never heard of transit traffic?

The major Internet backbone links are OC-192 and higher, the Narus system described in the document could only handle up to OC-48 (1/4 the speed of OC-192 circuits).

Yup, at any given time, although I doubt AT&T has their connection constantly maxed out, so we don't know the real traffic rate percentage this can monitor. We also have no idea what the capacity of the storage they are using for forensic analysis of this data is, nor how long they are keeping it. Hopefully the average load, the regexps matched (at least in general), and the procedures in place will shed some light on this.

Or at least that is the way NSA and the administration perceive the rules for foreign intercept.

The courts have not yet ruled on this (and I suspect they will find the NSA in violation) and I think the "reasonable expectation of privacy" of the average citizen is pretty clear here.

Another potential reason for NSA cleared individuals having access to the rooms is that NSA performs security clearance screening for telecommunications related lawful intercept employees.

That seems more than a little far-fetched to me.

In my mind, I don't know what they were doing, but I think the circumstantial evidence is rather strong. The problem is, I don't trust that a proper investigation will be performed, given the current and obvious corruption of our government. I would like to compliment you, however, on at least providing some of the only rational discourse in this thread.

I have, but usually AT&T is not going ot have the "best path" to customers of UUNet, for example, except to an AT&T transit customer. Which qualifies as traffic that AT&T could be asked to intercept.

BTW, I agree that this whole AT&T/Narus/NSA situation is a terrible assualt on liberty, I just want to be sure that people put the blame where it belongs. The congressmen and senators that write these bad laws, the presidents for signing them, an

Bush's Attorney General, Gonzales, wants to figure out how to twist any possible law covering journalism and national security into prosecuting journalists for publishing leaked info [yahoo.com]. Even though WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Iraq War Sr and Jr, were all fought well without jailing leak publishers.

Bush certainly has "a new kind of war" in the Terror War: our goverment is at war with our people.

AT&T, you voided your right to keep your proprietary information locked up as trade secrets when you chose to engage in illegal activities with the government, conspiring to undermine our inalienable constitutional rights, namely the fourth and first amendments (and possibly the fifth in some cases if the "fishing" does turn up a crime). As bad as it is for pedophiles and terrorist and crack dealers to get away with what they're doing, I'd choose dealing with having those scumbags continue doing what they're doing than to lose my inalienable constitutional rights.

You got caught committing treason, and are now crying foul and are in essence trying to use the "trade secret" crap to get out of trouble and not lose customer confidence? Sorry, too late.

My wife walks past that building on the way to work every day. She has been calling it the "Spy Headquarters" ever since she first saw it. It just LOOKS guilty... It's almost hollywood in it's attempt to look like a secret NSA headquarters (completely "abandoned", but without the graphiti and homeless that a typical abandoned building in that area draws, and except for the mysterious lights that are only on at certian hours of the day and night only on the floors with the blinds drawn)...

In the old days, you'd hire a window washer to drill a little hole in a window frame and insert a tiny microphone, with a camoflauged lead running to the building next door, where a front company would have a front room of cute typists and a back room of guys with earphones and tape recorders. And a back door to scram out thru if the KGB started pounding on the front door. Cheap, effective, and semi-deniable when found out.

NOW the "Get Smart" guys build a "secret room" right in the bleepin Ma Bell building! And said room is of course (a) On the building plans, in duplicatre. (b) Known to everybody, as they're not allowed to go in there. (c) Uses scads of bulky and hot, and easily-identifiable off-the-rack equipment.

One of the more significant points of the story is the fact that the AT&T employee has leaked that NSA are using hardware and software from NARUS [narus.com] to analyse data traffic (the very same equipment is used by Telecom Egypt and Saudi Telecom).

Which of course makes it possible for the creative crypto-designer to work around this
particular device type, if necessary. But I would think that any reasonably encrypted
channel is immune to this automatic filtering.

Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?

Of course I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't like losing, either, but that's how the game is played.

The whole point of a trial is that one group says "X has wronged me", then both parties defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group decides the outcome.

You think that evidence should be kept from public view until after the jury's decision? That sounds an awful lot like a secret trail. What happened to due process and the right to "a speedy, public trial?"

AT&T is neither a rape nor a molestation victim. They are not even a victim at all. I'd say it's a tad difference when a court keeps documents a secret to spare the pain to a child than to help a monolithic corporation conceal it's blatant attack on privacy and it's assistance in setting up the infrastructure of an Orwellian police state.

This is MUCH MUCH different than a rape case. The plantiff in this case, is essentially, the entire general public of the U.S. Almost all of use could be/are affected by this. Being part of the plantiff's side, we should all have access to the information in the trial.

I hate to say it, but the Bush Administration and AT&T had it coming. You can't cry foul if someone else breaks the rules, when you claim that you are above the law because everything you do is a state secret or is in the "interest of national security".

This gets to the larger issue. As much as I am concerned about spying on Americans, and the mis-deeds of AT&T, I am much more concerned that the administration's actions in putting itself above the law sets a precedence for gross and blatant violation of the law by many. In short, what we have here is the begining of the breakdown of law and order.

That said, how do you fight those who are above the law when you are constrained to play by the rules? Consider that the administration stopped the Justice department investigation into the NSA [wired.com] by refusing to issue clearances to the Justice Department. Any ideas on how to deal with this when the legal system has been co-opted by those who are committing the mis-deeds? Does legality have any meaning in this case?

Let us stop this "Bush Administration" mumbo jumbo. This has nothing to do with Bush or the Republicans -- this has to do with pure, raw power. The Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans.Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia?

Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City?

Where are the Democrats who are decrying the laws THEY voted for as foul and evil? This is an election year, though, so we can't really tell if they'r

Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia?
Marching in the street, protesting the bombing. You probably saw them on TV and made fun of them. Probably called them "hippies," shouted some drunken inanity like: "The Sities are over!"
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City?
Protesting the reduction of our civil liberties. Some of us "anti-Bush liberals" (we weren't "anti-Bush" then, as he wasn't around, but that is quibbling) have been members of the ACLU for a long, long time.
Some of us "liberals" put money, not just angry verbiage and blustering internet bravado, into our resistance to increasing government power.
Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it.
This is true - but when Clinton was President, the Democratic Party did not have the monopoly on power the Republicans enjoy in Congress today. There were GOP leaders (Bob Barr chief among them) who defended civil liberties - and still do. Barr is persona non grata in the party now because of his principled non-partisan defense of civil liberties.
Dismissing both parties as "monsters" is just as ridiculous, perhaps even moreso, than partisan loyalty. In your case, your thoughtless position not only offers no solution itself, your juvenile dismissal of "both parties" allows for no improvement, no room for rational discussion.
I join you in the sentiment that both parties contain "professional politicians" - people who seek power or political office as a means in itself, rather than a means to better society and worked toward a progressive future. But so what? Judging by your example, the political parties are not the only ones with members who are incapable of seeing beyond their own petty self-interests and prejudices.

Name one period in history where this has happened when the Democrats held all od the power.

Yes, there are craven power seekers in the Democratic party. They're politicians, after all. But there is one essential thing lacking on the Democratic side: absolute party unity. Republicans have it, Democrats don't.

I consider myself to the left of the spectrum. I have been a registered Democrat at times. Today I learned that a Democratic representative

Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?

Actually I think you have the question inverted. A closer fit to reality would be:

"Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you taken out of the normal public record (which allows the public to track how the government administers justice), before the jury has made their decision?"

The court's gag order is very specific in barring only the EFF, its representatives and its technical experts from discussing and disseminating this information. The court explicitly rejected AT&T's motion to include Klein in the gag order and declined AT&T's request to force the EFF to return the documents.

Wired didn't abuse the system, they played right within the rules. This is exactly the sort of case that makes democracies stronger - the government is accused of widespread abuse of power, and tries hard to avoid having any light shed on its case. The press reveals the evidence against the government, and the public gains insight into what their elected leaders are doing. Without an unfettered press, we'd have no clue what they were up to.

You clearly learned nothing from the American Revolution. Had that revolution failed, every person who signed the Declaration of Independence would have been drawn and quartered as a traitor.

Ever wonder why your signature is referred to as your "John Hancock"? Take a look at a picture of the Declaration of Independence some day. You'll see that by far the largest, most prominent signature is that of John Hancock. This was not him being arrogant - this was him making sure they knew his name. This was an act of courage on his part.

You're replying under the assumption of "The ends never justify the means." Which in almost all cases is true.

The one case where it is NOT true is the attempt to fight for freedom and save our liberties from disappearing. That is what our Founding Fathers did. They were criminals until they successfully won the Revolution.

And so it is now, for people who stand up to our government and say "You cannot trample our rights and liberties. We will stop you." The government considers them criminals (and those who have swallowed the "party" line).

>At what point will journalists in this country realize that we are a nation of laws?

Yes, we are a nation of laws. One of our first, and most important ones says:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

The executive branch isn't given the ability to stifle this right simply because some of the facts it exposes might be embarassing or actually illegal. If you really do think this is a nation of laws, you should be complaining about the White House breaking them long before Wired News.

>For those who would try and turn this around to point at the current administration, Let us all keep in mind that everything going on with the NSA is perfectly LEGAL.

And how exactly would you know that? Because the administration says so? For anyone who even pretends to respect freedom, that's not enough.

But the laws being used by the NSA, etc., were created by an illegitimate administration. --One which forged two elections through, (among several different means), the use of Diebold's voting machines, which have been demonstrated numerous times to be faulty with a conservative bias.

It seems to me that Wired has decided not to respect fraudulent law makers, which is what the voice of a conscientious people should be doing. I certainly hope that the people's voice when it contests fascism avoids being crushed into silence. I applaud those who have the guts and nobility to push back against criminals where others are too cowardly or ignorant to stand up.

At what point will journalists in this country realize that we are a nation of laws?

This is almost completely untrue. We are not, and never have been, a nation of laws. Laws aren't at the top of the hierarchy, and hopefully never will be. We are a nation of principles, and all our laws are subject to adherence to those principles.

When someone breaks a law in pursuance of those principles, they do our country a service. If they have the courage of their convictions, they may even be able to get the law overturned. If, on the other hand, it is determined that those principles do not support their action, the law will be upheld, and they will be held accountable for violating it.

Wired, from their own words, seems to believe that they're not even breaking the law (violating the court order) in this case. But if they are, they are clearly doing so in an attempt to bring matters to public attention that many of us feel require more public scrutiny.

So, at what point will the administration remember that we are a nation of principles? They seem to have convienently forgotten the ones they don't like.

>Let us all keep in mind that everything going on with the NSA is perfectly LEGAL.

SecurityFocus columnist Mark Rasch [securityfocus.com] thinks the pen register statute [cornell.edu] applies, forbidding the collection of call records with a court order or a FISA warrant. His opinion is also that even with a warrant the surveillance has to be targeted. One loophole might be that the phone companies keep this kind of data as an inevitable part of their operations and can share it if they choose -- but 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) forbids them to turn it over to the government. Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) is also protected under 47 USC 222. Then there's the issue of breach of contract, or fraud, from the telcos violating their privacy policies. The remaining wiggle room is not enough to say "perfectly legal", let alone "perfectly LEGAL".

Mark Rasch is a former prosecutor and holds a Juris Doctor degree. He's former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit.

MAE-West is the main interconnect for backbone providers on the west coast. Another key interconnect on the east coast (MAE-East [wikipedia.org]). Klein's document provides solid information that this "secret room" setup was being duplicated at many other AT&T locations, and AT&T is (of course) a member of the MAE-East exchange as well.

So yeah, they are tapping into pretty much all of the US-based internet.

Don't you realize that ATT is a backbone, and that a whole lot of the world's internet traffic passes over ATT fiber? They're capable of sniffing a hell of a lot more than their own WorldNet service...

The people here who are saying that Wired is upholding free speech, wouldn't feel that way if it was their day in court. They are circumventing standard operating procedures.

You appear to assume two things which I strongly disagree with. ..

1. That "standard operating procedures" are not heavily fixed, (see recent appointments to the supreme court), so that Bush's morally defunct policies are upheld, (ie., the individual cannot fight abuse by the coroporate body),

Hiring crooks (either convicted or suspected) is pretty much the norm for the Bush Administration. Consider Elliot Abrams [wikipedia.org], guilty of withholding information from Congress, and John Negroponte [wikipedia.org], widely suspected of complicity with death squads in Honduras and Iraq.

Personally, if the NSA, CIA, FBI or any other government agnecy, believes a terrorist organization is potentially using a segement of the internet and they want install fiber splitter to be able to filter and report on who they are talking to and what data they are passing, I, for one, am fully in favor of it.

but then go on to say

If you want to do something illegal, don't use a telephone, cell phone or the internet... if you want to thwart the Narus (or any other) data capture and processing, e

Anonymous Troll. I/spit on you.If you are doing something illegal/immoral/nasty/dumb/stupid maybe the NSA's monitoring system will make you think twice about doing it.

This argument is perhaps the single worst position one can hold in a discussion of rights.

Anytime one hears this, the intelligence and/or motives of the speaker should immediately be cast into doubt. Either you aren't intelligent enough to understand the issues at hand, have not thought about them at length, or are trying to do something evi